assess_change_risk

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds that it is read-only (consistent) and describes the output structure ('Returns JSON: { risk, level, factors, mitigations }') and the factors considered. This adds useful context beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences plus a brief output summary, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the output fields and factors. It explains the scope (quick risk check) and the inputs. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what it returns and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, simply mentioning file or symbol. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool predicts risk level (low/medium/high/critical) with factors and mitigations, and distinguishes from siblings like get_change_impact by mentioning it combines blast radius, complexity, etc. It is specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use ('quick risk check') and when not to ('for full impact report use get_change_impact'), providing a clear alternative. This helps the agent decide which tool to invoke.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.